b. Of the alleged discrepancies, one on wliich much stress has been laid is, that in various parts of the book Joshua is said to have subdued the whole land and de- stroyed the Canaanites (xi, 10; xii, 7 sq.; xxi, 43; xxii, 4), whereas in others it is stated that large portions of the land were not conquered by Joshua (xiii, 1 sq. ; xvii, 14 sq. ; xviii, 3 sq. ; xxiii, 5-12). It is worthy of note, however, in the outset, that this is a discrepancy which pervades the hook, and on which, consequently, no ar- gument for diversity of authorship, as between ihi first and the second parts of it, can be built. Again, a dis- crepancy of this sort is of a kind so obvious, that it is exactly such as a compiler, coolly surveying the mate- rials he is putting together, would at once detect and eliminate ; whereas an original writer might write so as to give the appearance of it from looking at the same object from different points of view in the course of his writing. Viewed in relation to purpose and effect, the land was conquered and appropriated; Israel was set- tled in it as master and proprietor, the power of the Ca- naanites was broken, and God's covenant to his people was fulfilled. But through various causes, chioliy tlie people's own faidt, the work was not literally completed; and therefore, viewed in relation to what ought to have been done and what might have been done, the historian could not but record that there yet remained some ene- mies to be conquered, and some portions of the land to be appropriated. It was intended (Ex. xxiii, 28, 30) (Ex. xxiii, 28, 30) that the people should occupy the land little by little. In like manner, it can not be al- lowed that the general statement (xi, 23) that Joshua gave the land mito all Israel according to their divisions by their tribes is inconsistent with the fact (xviii, 1 ; xix, 51) that many subsequent years passed before the process of division was completed and the allotments linally adjusted.
The boundaries of the different tribes, it is said, are stated sometimes with greater, sometimes with less ex- actness. Now this may be a faidt of the surveyors em- ployed by Joshua ; but it is scarcely an inconsistency to be charged on the writer of the book who transcribed their descriptions. Again, the divine promise that the coast of Israel shall extend to the Euphrates (i, 4) is not inconsistent with the fact that the countrj' which Joshua was commanded to divide (xiii, 16) does not extend so far. Again, the statement (xiii, 3) that Ekron, etc., re- mained yet to be possessed is not inconsistent with the subsequent statement (xv, 45) that it was assigned to Judah. Dr. Davidson gives no proof either of his sertion that the former text is in fact subsequent to the latter, or of his supposition that Ekron was in the p session of Judah at the time of its assignment.
Another apparent discrepancy has been foimd be- tween xxii, 2 and xxiv, 14, 23. How, it is asked, could there be " gross idolatry" amongst a people who had in , all things conformed to the law of God given by Moses? j This difficulty is dealt with by Augustine {Qumst. in Jos.X qu. 29), who solves it by understanding the injunction' of Joshua to refer to alienation of heart on the part of the people from God. This explanation is followed in substance by Calvin and others, and it is apparently the true one. Had Joshua known that " gross idolatry" was practiced by the people, he would have taken vigor- ous measures before this to extirpate it. But against secret and heart idolatry he could use only words of warning and counsel.
Another discrepancy is thus set forth by Dr. David- son (Introd. i, p. 415) : "It is related that the people as- sembled at Sichem, ' under an oak that was by the sanc- tuary of the Lord,' and ' they presented themselves be- fore God,' implying that the tabernacle and ark were there. But we know from xviii, 1 that the tabernacle hid tjcen removed from its former place at Gilgal to Shi- loh, where it remained for a long period after Joshua's
JOSHUA
1029
JOSHUA
death" (1 Sam.iii, 21; iv, 3). Here are several mis- takes. The phrase " before God" (Oin'^Nn ^pph) does not necessarily mean " before the ark of the Lord" (comp. Gen. xxvii, 7 ; Judg. xi, 11 ; xx, 1 ; 1 Kings xvii, 1, etc.; Hengstenberg, Beiti: iii, 43) ; and it is not related that " the people assembled under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord," but that Joshua " took a great stone and set it up there under the oak that was within the sanctuary of the Lord" (xxiv, 26). The oak refer- red to was probably a well-known one that stood within the spot wliich had been the first sanctuary of the Lord in Canaan (Gen. xii, G, 7), and where the nation had been convened by Josliua, on first entering the Prom- ised Land, to listen to the words of the law (Josh, viii, 30-35). No place more fitting as the site of a memo- rial stone such as Joshua is here said to have set up could be found.